JUDGMENT : A.M. Bujor Barua, J Heard Mr. N Taje, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. RH Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents No. 1 to 5 being the authorities in the PWD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. Considering the nature of the order proposed to be passed, notice is not required to be issued to the respondent No. 6. 2. The petitioner is a resident of Tepi village under Pistana Circle in the Lower Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioner refers to a detailed estimate for technical sanction for the work “c/o Road from Yazali Mengio road to Sito via Tepi village”. As per the detailed estimate, the estimated cost is Rs. 12,50,00.654/-i.e. approximately Rs. 12.50 crores and the head of the account is RIDF Tranche-XXIII(2017-18). 3. This public interest litigation petition is instituted on the grievance that while undertaking the aforesaid work, there is a deviation by the authorities, which according to the local people would be unacceptable. Accordingly, this public interest litigation petition is instituted to stop the ongoing road construction activities of the road from Yazali Mengio Road to Sito village via Tepi village and also not to release the contractual payment bills to the contractors who are undertaking the work as well as for a direction to issue a fresh NIT for the construction of the work. 4. If the grievance of the petitioner is that there is a deviation in the construction work from the work provided in the Detailed Project Report (in short DPR), we do not understand why the petitioner wants the road construction work to be stopped and further not to release any contractual payment bills to the contractors for the work that is performed as well as to issue a fresh NIT. 5. In order to understand the alignment of the road that was sanctioned as per the aforementioned DPR, we take note of the alignment plan for road as available in page 118 of the present petition. The alignment plan of the road is amply clear that the construction is to be undertaken from the place marked as Take Up Point to Sito village through the Tepi village by crossing a bridge over Polyu River. 6. Mr. RH Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General upon instruction states that the construction of the work is going on as per the alignment as depicted in page 118 of the petition. 6. Mr. RH Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General upon instruction states that the construction of the work is going on as per the alignment as depicted in page 118 of the petition. If the construction of the road is going on as per the alignment plan for road as available at page 118, we are of the view that no interference is required from this Court at this stage. 7. No specific material is available in the PIL on the allegation of the petitioner as to whether any deviation of the alignment plan from the actual road construction is going on. If the petitioner has any further material, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach again with more specific detail information as to in what manner there is a deviation in the construction of the road from the alignment plan for road as available in the DPR. However, we observe that as it is a road for the benefits of the local people of Tepi village and Sito village, we expect that the construction of the road is completed at the earliest with acceptable quality of construction as required under the DPR. 8. Accordingly, we close this PIL with the above observation, however, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach again if more specific information is available as to any deviation from the alignment plan of the road provided in the DPR. It is stated by Mr. RH Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General upon instruction that the construction of the road from the Take Up Point to Sito village via Tepi village through the bridge over Polyu river would take approximately 07(seven) months time to be completed and the work would be completed strictly as per the requirement of the DPR mentioned above.